Kyle Rittenhouse Case starts

[HannahT]

The play-by-play.

The chad defense attorney aka "Agent 47":
"You were literally about to shoot and kill Rittenhouse with your own gun, but he shot you first in self-defense?"

The star witness:
"That's correct"

The prosecution:
View attachment 308211

Yes, I couldn't believe he admitted in court that he didn't get shot until he pointed his glock at Rittenhouse's head. LINK 2:30:14 in case link doesn't work.

At first he didn't want to admit it, but they have a picture of him pointing it at Rittenhouse's head. It also shows how his arm was shot.

You agree that your gun is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse YES?
Yes
Once you pointed your gun at Mr. Rittenhouse that's when he fires...Yes?
No
Sir, does this picture not show your arm being shot?
It looks like my bicep being vaporized YES!
Okay. Your bicep is being vaporized as your gun is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse...YES?
Yes
Okay. So, when you were standing 3-5 feet in front of Mr Rittenhouse with your hands in the air he never fired RIGHT?
Correct.
It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, and your gun pointed at him that he fired RIGHT?
Correct.

Rittenhouse almost looked like he was going to cry after this man admitted it. The prosecution? Well your picture tells the story. The court clerk's facial expression does as well.

Can you say YIKES?! Wow. I don't know about the other two people that were shot, but sounds like self defense in this circumstance.

 

[Justin-H.S.]

Yes, I couldn't believe he admitted in court that he didn't get shot until he pointed his glock at Rittenhouse's head. LINK 2:30:14 in case link doesn't work.

At first he didn't want to admit it, but they have a picture of him pointing it at Rittenhouse's head. It also shows how his arm was shot.

You agree that your gun is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse YES?
Yes
Once you pointed your gun at Mr. Rittenhouse that's when he fires...Yes?
No
Sir, does this picture not show your arm being shot?
It looks like my bicep being vaporized YES!
Okay. Your bicep is being vaporized as your gun is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse...YES?
Yes
Okay. So, when you were standing 3-5 feet in front of Mr Rittenhouse with your hands in the air he never fired RIGHT?
Correct.
It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, and your gun pointed at him that he fired RIGHT?
Correct.

Rittenhouse almost looked like he was going to cry after this man admitted it. The prosecution? Well your picture tells the story. The court clerk's facial expression does as well.

Can you say YIKES?! Wow. I don't know about the other two people that were shot, but sounds like self defense in this circumstance.

Agent 47 also got Grosskreutz to describe Anthony Huber’s skateboard strike to Rittenhouse’s head as “blunt force head trauma” iirc. It was masterful how he massaged his EMT identity into volunteering that medical terminology on his own thus helping Rittenhouse with the self defense claim against Huber. A two-fer.

 

[iarwain]

YCan you say YIKES?! Wow. I don't know about the other two people that were shot, but sounds like self defense in this circumstance

I don't see how anyone could not think those second two shootings were in self defense, unless they were politicizing the case. To me, the only question has ever been about the first shooting. I believe that is self defense also, but that's the only one there's a question about IMO.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I don't think anyone is accusing Rittenhouse of good judgement. He's 17, and I think someone said he's bipolar? Not sure about that. Getting involved in a "mostly peaceful protest" isn't the point, he was there. The question is if he's guilty of murder or did he shoot in self defense.

He's bipolar and owns a gun ?

You see the problem with this don't you ?

 

[HannahT]

I don't see how anyone could not think those second two shootings were in self defense, unless they were politicizing the case. To me, the only question has ever been about the first shooting. I believe that is self defense also, but that's the only one there's a question about IMO.

I'm sorry. What I meant by not knowing about the other two shootings? I haven't been following the case close enough. I just happen to listen to this one day with Grosskreutz. So, I can give my opinion on that. I might go and find the youtube if I have time for the rest.

I was listening to most of it, and not watching for the most part. I was watching towards the end of Grosskreutz when he admitted he was shot when he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse's head. That man's testimony was strange to begin with. He was dancing around to much with his presentation, and if I could feel it? You have to wonder about the jury.

 

[HannahT]

He's bipolar and owns a gun ?

You see the problem with this don't you ?

It's already been clarified and its not Rittenhouse with Bipolar. It was Rosenbaum.

 

[Justin-H.S.]

It's already been clarified and its not Rittenhouse with Bipolar. It was Rosenbaum.

Which was clarified by Rosenbaum's fiance' that he was on two psych meds at the time, as well that he was released from the psychiatric hospital that day, hence why he was carrying around a plastic hospital bag the night of the riot. He was on something for bipolar, and something else for a different psychiatric issue. The third medication he was on was for sleeping.

 

[iarwain]

He's bipolar and owns a gun ?
You see the problem with this don't you ?

As has been clarified, apparently it was Rosenbaum who was bipolar.
In any case, I've never said Rittenhouse should have had the gun, or should have been there. That's a completely separate issue IMO. I'm just saying I don't believe he is guilty of murder, I believe he shot those people in self defense.

 

[Norbert L]

I still have no idea what your point is.

To simplify the point, do you believe that occasional errors made by all news media (of any kind) mean that all news you don’t like is fake? That appears to be what you were saying. If you believe that to be the case, what are you reasons, other than one in several million bits of data being occasionally wrong or not quite accurate?

I'll reiterate.

This appears to be the best argument of the ‘fake news’ mob. Just think it through - this almost never happens. We’re talking about a few instances a year of information that is mistaken and later corrected, out of millions of news stories. It’s like trying to argue that someone choking on an M&M proves confectionary companies have a plot to kill everyone.

Retractions undeniably appear, with that you and I are on the same page. It can be used by individuals to indicate fake news. Also not in dispute. Here's where we begin to differ. To associate an individual journalist that you or I disagree with as part of a fake news mob is making a prejudgment about his integrity and the accuracy of his reporting. I would add that the frequency of retractions is irrelevant when discussing a particular news story. There is something to see here.

On the other hand, you have not mentioned a single one of Tim Pools points for our consideration.

I have not attacked his credibility, which is the starting point of our interchange.

Is that your go-to source? Tim Cast? Knowing Tim's stance, it is no surprise you came away from it with the impression you did.

What is well known are ad homenins are useless in determining the validity of the points he mentions.

Now consider this: I initially suggested that this is no way to criticize his point and to use your own words, "you have not mentioned a single one of Tim Pools points for our consideration."

You would need to reference the time stamp he said it and supply a more rational answer.

I would say the finger you're pointing at me is also forgetting about the three fingers pointing back at you.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I'll reiterate.
Retractions undeniably appear, with that you and I are on the same page. It can be used by individuals to indicate fake news.

I have yet to hear of an individual blogger who issued a retraction, so I don't know what you mean by "Retractions can be used by individuals to indicate fake news."

Here's where we begin to differ. To associate an individual journalist that you or I disagree with as part of a fake news mob..

...is not my argument. I don't dismiss Tim Pool for what he is. I dismiss Tim Pool for what he isn't: a recognized responsible and authoritative journalist. This is nothing against him. There are very relatively few recognized responsible and authoritative journalists, and not to be counted in that group is not a terrible thing.

..is making a prejudgment about his integrity and the accuracy of his reporting.

How can one judge the accuracy of an opinion? One can't. And that is all the Tim Pool is offering is his opinion.

I would add that the frequency of retractions is irrelevant when discussing a particular news story.

Then why did you bring up the numerous retractions made by mainstream media if not to bring them down to the level of YouTube bloggers?

I have not attacked his credibility, which is the starting point of our interchange.

The burden is on Tim to establish his credibility - not on me to show where he is not credible. If I posted the opinion of my next door neighbor in a lengthy YouTube video, would you feel obligated to watch the video and identify where he is wrong? Or would you say "the opinion of your next door neighbor is irrelevant in the issue of Kyle Rittenhouse? Why should I or anyone treat Tim Pool's opinion any higher than the opinion of millions of other Americans? What makes him so special?

Now consider this: I initially suggested that this is no way to criticize his point...

...but I am not criticizing his point. I am ignoring his point because it is irrelevant in this story. Tim Pool was not there at the demonstration. He has no special insight that would make his opinion more valuable than anyone else's.

 

[HannahT]

As has been clarified, apparently it was Rosenbaum who was bipolar.
In any case, I've never said Rittenhouse should have had the gun, or should have been there. That's a completely separate issue IMO. I'm just saying I don't believe he is guilty of murder, I believe he shot those people in self defense.

Legally, his being present there is separate from his self defense plea. Was he in fear for his life at the time he killed/wounded the three men. That's what is on trial. None of the charges that I have read about have anything to do with his presence there at all. Maybe the curfew, but that was thrown out.

Majority of the people there shouldn't have been there IMO.

The prosecution isn't doing such a hot job from what I have seen. Although, we aren't seeing it via the jury's eyes. They may have seen it differently.

 

[iarwain]

Legally, his being present there is separate from his self defense plea. Was he in fear for his life at the time he killed/wounded the three men. That's what is on trial. None of the charges that I have read about have anything to do with his presence there at all. Maybe the curfew, but that was thrown out.

I was looking at the charges, I didn't realize he isn't charged with murder exactly. He is charged with first degree intentional homicide, and reckless endangerment, both with a deadly weapon. The one he definitely seems to be guilty of is possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

 

[HannahT]

I was looking at the charges, I didn't realize he isn't charged with murder exactly. He is charged with first degree intentional homicide, and reckless endangerment, both with a deadly weapon. The one he definitely seems to be guilty of is possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

Yeah.

First-degree reckless homicide
First-degree recklessly endangering safety
First-degree intentional homicide
Attempted first-degree intentional homicide
Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18
Use of a dangerous weapon

I meant there are no charges related to him NOT suppose to be there. I wasn't clear. Sorry.

 

[HannahT]

I was watching some youtube commentary on the case since I missed pieces of it.

I know during trial they caught some people taking pictures of the jury. The Judge was NOT happy.

Then you have video on twitter saying that Cortez Rice - alleged relative of Floyd - claiming that they were planted there to make sure the jury gets it right.

I saw a Kenosha news report that they are indeed investigating the person caught, and the safety of the rest of the jury.

Of course allegations of doxing and intimidation. They need to strengthen the jury in these cases. That's just uncalled for.

 

[Norbert L]

I have yet to hear...

This is what happens when using attacking the character of a person rather than the substance of what is being said.

Is that your go-to source? Tim Cast? Knowing Tim's stance, it is no surprise you came away from it with the impression you did.

 

[Danthemailman]

Kyle Rittenhouse's mother slams Joe Biden for 'defam[ing]' her son in exclusive 'Hannity' interview

Kyle Rittenhouse's mother slams Joe Biden for 'defam[ing]' her son in exclusive 'Hannity' interview

 

[HannahT]

Kyle Rittenhouse's mother slams Joe Biden for 'defam[ing]' her son in exclusive 'Hannity' interview

Kyle Rittenhouse's mother slams Joe Biden for 'defam[ing]' her son in exclusive 'Hannity' interview

I was reading that she spoke out for the first time. Biden I guess assumed he was showing his leadership skills, calm and unity approaches with the White Supremacy comment.

I have been busy at home recently, and normally don't have much time to keep up with this type of stuff. Yet, we have been listening to the trial while we have had projects here to do. We got very behind while my H was sick. Even prior to the verdict the media got loads of information wrong, and left out important aspects. Heck, even recent stories I have read had huge holes missing - and completely incorrect information listed too. It reminds me once again they know drama sells and it pays their bills. It doesn't matter whom it effects. I guess the public doesn't have the right to know anymore.

The media at one time had standards to uphold to protect the citizens against the government and misjustice - now they just like juicy tidbits. This story should have been news of course, but they haven't done much better than the DA. I was shocked at how badly he did - wasn't expecting that. I really was expecting him to do a better job - it was really sloppy and nonsensical at times. I mean our taxes pay for that?!

If this young man gets off? Libel suits will happen again just like they did with the Covington Kid - and the media outlets will lose those again. We live in crazy times.

 

[Malleeboy]

Rittenhouse facts

Legally allowed to carry the gun.
Not breaching curfew
Gun didn't cross state boundary
Worked in Kenosha, Dad and Grandma lived in there.
Owned body armor but lent it to another guys that night cause he was being a medic.
Actually provided medical assistance to a rioter.
Was chased into corner, by man who had threatened him verbally twice, who chased him, a friend of the chaser shot a gun from behind him, chaser yelled "Fxxx You" and lunged at him and hand as on gun or within inches of it.
Run towards police after shooting.
Was hit in the head, knocking off hat, didn't shoot.
Was kicked in the head, and spun 180 degrees from the kick and fired twice at that person missing.
Was hit in head with skateboard, skateboarder than tried to pull the gun from Rittenhouse, and that point was shot.
Last guy spoke to Rittenhouse, and was informed that Rittenhouse was going to police, last guy chased and caught up to Rittenhouse, he then approached with hands up, dropped hands and pointed a loaded pistol at Rittenhouse's head and was shot. Last guy was suing city for $10 million but failed to mention gun in hand in original statement nor in suit against city.
Did not shoot a single person who was not threatening him.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Rittenhouse facts

Legally allowed to carry the gun.
Not breaching curfew
Gun didn't cross state boundary
Worked in Kenosha, Dad and Grandma lived in there.
Owned body armor but lent it to another guys that night cause he was being a medic.
Actually provided medical assistance to a rioter.
Was chased into corner, by man who had threatened him verbally twice, who chased him, a friend of the chaser shot a gun from behind him, chaser yelled "Fxxx You" and lunged at him and hand as on gun or within inches of it.
Run towards police after shooting.
Was hit in the head, knocking off hat, didn't shoot.
Was kicked in the head, and spun 180 degrees from the kick and fired twice at that person missing.
Was hit in head with skateboard, skateboarder than tried to pull the gun from Rittenhouse, and that point was shot.
Last guy spoke to Rittenhouse, and was informed that Rittenhouse was going to police, last guy chased and caught up to Rittenhouse, he then approached with hands up, dropped hands and pointed a loaded pistol at Rittenhouse's head and was shot. Last guy was suing city for $10 million but failed to mention gun in hand in original statement nor in suit against city.
Did not shoot a single person who was not threatening him.

I believe at age 17, it was illegal for Rittenhouse to be carrying a loaded weapon without
a person of legal age to be with him.

I don't believe running through the streets with a loaded weapon was legal either.

Right now I think we'll see a hung jury when it comes to deciding on the case of
murder.

BTW, the judge should've prevented Al Sharpton and other black activists
from entering the courtroom, thereby making the Jurors feel threatened if
they voted wrong.

 

[iarwain]

I believe at age 17, it was illegal for Rittenhouse to be carrying a loaded weapon without
a person of legal age to be with him.

I don't believe running through the streets with a loaded weapon was legal either.

But he isn't charged with these things.

Right now I think we'll see a hung jury when it comes to deciding on the case of
murder.

I sincerely hope not. To me, this seems like such a blatantly obvious case of self defense, and the prosecution did such a poor job, it would be a disappointment to me if the jury is hung or finds him guilty. That would suggest to me that it would be almost impossible to get a fair trial, if the case is somehow or somewhat politicized.

Kyle Rittenhouse's mother slams Joe Biden for 'defam[ing]' her son in exclusive 'Hannity' interview

Seems really irresponsible (in the very least) for a then presidential candidate to be calling a kid a white supremacist, without any real evidence of it.